Palin bombs interview

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The interview was a bit canned, but I think she handled herself decently. I don't think this thread is really interested in honest discussion, so I don't have much more to say on it, except ...

... if she really is as dumb as you all say, and McCain-Palin wins, that means you will have been beaten 3 times in a row by dumb people. Maybe your definition of dumb requires re-examination.

Depends on our opinion of the "dumbness" of Americans as a whole.

Exhibit 1: voting Bush into office twice.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Thanks BatGirl. Some reaction:

1) Overall, Charlie looks to be in "I'm going to get you mode," which isn't his general MO. I doubt it would be the same for McCain, Obama, or Biden. I wonder why.

2) ABC clearly edited the church quote, taking away the context and altering the original meaning. Palin's answer tried to reestablish that, but I think this is very bad form and shows a clear bias on ABC's/Charlie's part.

3) Her views on Georgia membership in NATO are the same as Obama's views, correct? Charlie said "war" with Russia, she said "perhaps so" and "help" a NATO ally. I wonder why this is such a controversy. Do I not understand the meaning of "alliance." I would like to know why she thinks Russia was unprovoked by Georgia, but I doubt anybody else cares.

4) Someone here mocked her for noting that one could see Russia from Alaska. I will note that Charlie raised the proximity issue TWICE before she did.

5) On Israel/Iran, I see no problem with that answer, and the vast majority of Americans agree, even Obama when speaking before Jewish groups.

6) Her "gaff" on "the Bush Doctrine" is her weakest moment. Well, there it is, she gaffed. Charlie was trying to get her, and he did (refer back to point one). She was not able to avoid every pitfall Charlie put before her. It was coming, we knew it, and now it has happened. UD is a wonk, so not surprising that it would bother him. I'm a bit of a wonk and I do wish she had shown a better understanding of the term, but frankly, I don't remember the last time the term was used in a public way. That said, she showed a clear understanding of and agreement with the "Bush Doctrine," even though she wasn't immediately clear on Charlie's question.

7) The big question is how this affects voters. Obviously, the lines are drawn here, so it doesn't matter what you all think. Is the average undecided going to care that her only muff was on "the Bush Doctrine?" Or are they going to care more about how she comes across in the face of the contrary Charlie Gibson? She looked strong, professed belief that God has a plan for us, talked about her son going to defend our freedom, gave support to Israel, was resolute against Russia (which you can see from Alaska), and said we needed to get the terrorists. What's not to like?

say he would go into Pakistan to get terrorists if Pakistan didn't?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by exUte

because of Ross Perot........twice. Lost to the cigarman.

why was Ross Perot running? When you can answer that question you can figure out why Bush sr. lost.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

You've heard the original comment she made, right? They didn't really change the meaning. Or were you referring to the loaded question about a holy war?

I disagree. Here's her quote at the church:

“...that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”

She added, “That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.”

Charlie left out a "that", which changed it from a hopeful statement to a declarative statement.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BlueK

why was Ross Perot running? When you can answer that question you can figure out why Bush sr. lost.

The only fact that remains is that because of Ross, Clinton beat both Bush and Dole. Fact, jack.

Or are you saying Ross took votes away from Clinton? That would be an interesting read.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I disagree. Here's her quote at the church:



Charlie left out a "that", which changed it from a hopeful statement to a declarative statement.

They don't report the news, they try and make the news for their ratings.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by exUte

The only fact that remains is that because of Ross, Clinton beat both Bush and Dole. Fact, jack.

Or are you saying Ross took votes away from Clinton? That would be an interesting read.

Where he took votes from is irrelevant. The fact he got votes says there were an awful lot of unhappy voters who didn't want to vote for either. And that means Bush as the incumbent who lost did not convince enough people to vote for him. That's his campaign's fault and no one else's. Did you know the additional number who cast votes in 1992 compared to four years earlier was almost exactly the same number who voted for Perot? (22 million more votes cast in 1992, 20 million votes for Perot). Chances are the majority of Perot voters would not have voted at all and then Clinton still wins. They only voted for Perot because they didn't want the status quo. What makes you think they still would have voted for it if they didn't have that third choice? These are just myths perpetuated by the two major parties who want us to think more choices on the ballot is a bad thing.

[Venkman]

Another thing regarding Sarah Palin's "exact quote" on the task from God.

This from NR's Corner:

A reader with a vivid political imagination dreams of the following exchange:

Charlie Gibson: “Senator Obama, you have referred in the past to ‘my Muslim faith.’ How strong is your Muslim faith?”
Barack Obama: “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”
Charlie Gibson: “Exact words.”

You remember the old bit about the movie ad? Reviewer Joe Smith says, “This is far from a great movie.” And the ad comes out, “Joe Smith says, ‘This is . . . a great movie’!”

Gibson did not commit a capital offense — and if Palin performed poorly in this interview, the responsibility is hers alone. But the abbreviation of that quote — not so cool.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Where he took votes from is irrelevant. The fact he got votes says there were an awful lot of unhappy voters who didn't want to vote for either. And that means Bush as the incumbent who lost did not convince enough people to vote for him. That's his campaign's fault and no one else's. Did you know the additional number who cast votes in 1992 compared to four years earlier was almost exactly the same number who voted for Perot? (22 million more votes cast in 1992, 20 million votes for Perot). Chances are the vast majority of Perot voters would not have voted at all and then Clinton still wins.

Clinton won with 43% of the vote. That means 57% didn't vote for him. More voted against, instead of for him! That is irrelevant?

I will admit, those 8 years may have been more boring without him. But I have NO doubt, that Osama would still be walking the earth with either Bush or Dole at the helm. For that you can thank Clinton.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Another thing regarding Sarah Palin's "exact quote" on the task from God.

This from NR's Corner:

eom